16 juni 2011

Cultural flat-rate: A non-solution to a non-problem

Cultural flat-rate, or a broadband tax to give money to copyright holders, is an idea that has been around for at least a decade, but has never become reality. There is a reason for this. The idea sounds deceptively simple and possibly attractive when you first hear it, but when you start looking at the details to formulate a concrete proposal, you become aware of the problems.

It is when you come to how the money should be distributed that the real fun begins.

TV and radio play: Giving to the rich
If you base the payouts to artists on what is being played on TV and radio, most of the money will go to the established artists that are already doing very well. This is how the current system with levies on blank discs and various electronic devices works.

One of the most attractive features of the Internet is that smaller and not yet established acts can reach an audience, even if they are not played on TV and radio. This is the ”long tail” effect, and all the small acts together constitute a fair amount of what is being downloaded from the net.

This is the group of artists that most people would want to support, both for the cultural diversity they provide, and simply because they very often need the money. With a cultural flat-rate based on TV and radio play, they will get very little of the money collected. At the same time, their fans will have less disposable income to spend on these artists, since the fans have had to pay the flat-rate out of their household culture and entertainment budget.

The net effect could very well be a system that reduces income for poor artists, and gives the money to the already rich.

The alternative that most flat-rate proponents favour is to instead measure what is actually shared on the net, and base payouts on those numbers. But that leads to other problems.

Billions to porn35% of the material downloaded from the net is porn. Pornography has exactly the same copyright protection as other audiovisual works. If the payments from a cultural flat-rate system are to be seen as ”compensation” for the downloading of copyrighted works, then 35% of the money should rightly go to the porn industry. Do you think that the politicians should create a system?

Personally, I have nothing against porn as such. It is a popular form of entertainment, and I see nothing wrong with it. But I do not think it requires billions in government mandated subsidies. Throughout history, this is an industry that has amply demonstrated its ability to stand on its own, if that is an appropriate expression in the context.

But if you want to exclude porn from a cultural flat-rate system, you will not only have to create a ”European Board of Morality and Good Taste”, or some similar mechanism to draw the line between pornography and art. More importantly, you can no longer use the argument that the cultural flat-rate is a ”compensation”, or has any connection to copyright.

Instead, it becomes random cultural subsidies at best, or an undisciplined money-grab at worst.

Filling up the networks
It is technically possible to measure what is being shared on the net with a reasonably high precision. Some people have voiced privacy concerns, but in this particular case, I don’t see that as a problem. The measuring only has to be ”good enough”, so it is not necessary to track every individual download that everybody does. You can fairly easily design a system to collect good enough statistics without invading anybody’s privacy.

But the minute you start paying out money based on the download statistics, people will change their behaviour. Today, if you like an artist and she has released a new album, you will download that album once so that you can listen to it. But if you know that your favourite artist will get money in proportion to how many times the album is downloaded, you realise that you can help that artist by downloading the same album over and over again.

Since it doesn’t cost you any of your own money even if you download the album a thousand times, or a million times, we can expect fans to do exactly that. We know that fans really love their idols, and want them to prosper economically. If all you have to do to make that happen is to start a three-line script on you computer when you are not using it for anything else, a lot of fans will.

The only real limit on the total number of ”I-want-to-help-my-favourite-artist downloads” will be the capacity of the Internet infrastructure. In other words: With a cultural flat-rate, the net will turn into a permanent gridlock of completely unnecessary traffic, and no matter how much money backbone providers spend on increasing the capacity, it will fill up immediately.

A revenue stream for virus writers
Computer viruses are a major problem today, despite the fact that it is actually quite hard for virus writers to make any money from their criminal activities. The purpose of a computer virus is usually to install a back door in your computer, to make it part of a so called ”botnet” of thousands of computers that the virus writer can take control of at will.

A botnet owner can sell his services to criminals who want to send spam or commit various forms of advanced fraud, but unless the virus writer has connections to organized crime, it is not trivial for him to convert his virus writing skills into hard cash. With a cultural flat-rate system, that changes.

In principle, all the owner of an illegal botnet needs is a friend who has recorded a song that is covered by copyright. He can then order the thousands of computers in the botnet to download the song again and again. Thanks to the flat-rate system, these downloads will automatically result in real money being paid out to the friend who has the copyright on the song.

In its most primitive form the police would perhaps be able to detect this criminal activity and put an end to it, but it is easy to imagine how more sophisticated criminals can elaborate the scheme. The cultural flat-rate system, which would pump out billions of euros per year on the basis of automatic download statistics, would become a very rewarding target for criminals. Writing harmful computer viruses would become a much more profitable activity than it is today.

There is no problem in the first place
There are several other arguments against cultural flat-rate as well, but I’ll skip those and go directly to the final, and very positive one:

There is no problem to be solved.

The Internet is a revolutionary technology that changes many of the preconditions for the cultural industries. The task for policy makers and politicians is not to protect old business models or to invent new ones. However, policy makers do have a responsibility for making sure that we have a society where culture can flourish, and where creative people have a chance to make money from what they do.

Ten years ago, when file sharing on the Internet on a massive scale was a new phenomenon, it was perhaps reasonable to wonder if this new technology would impact the market conditions for artists and creators so that they would find it impossible to make money from culture, and worry that cultural production would drastically decrease in society.

It is not easy to make a living as an artist, and it never has been, but the Internet has opened up new opportunities for creative people who want to find an audience without having to sell their soul to the big companies who used to control all the distribution channels. This is a very positive change for the artists and creators, both from a cultural and an economic perspective.

There is no need to compensate anybody for the fact that technological progress is making the world a better place.

82 kommentarer

A cultural flatrate makes absolutely no sense if governed by private interests. The cultural flatrate would be a way of the public/state/governance bodies to investigate whether there are non-rights based ways of supporting culture – namely, as a society we say ”As a society we want to benefit or support the creation of new culture. Copyright has proven a stupid and inefficient way of doing so that is also not compliant with how people themselves want to support culture. We shall have to look for another solution.”

A cultural flatrate doesn’t need to be paid to the porn industry, because society may not feel that pornographic material is that which is in most need of public support. Today, the art forms we primarily support with public money are small independents (in films, music, theater) and older forms of culture like, say, opera.

Surprisingly, I had a small downloading spree of contemporary Argentinian films (I watched one per day for two weeks in a row or so) and realized that about 30% of them have received funding from the French national film institute – there appear to be no similarly strong Argentinian film institutes so Argentina can’t support the generation of its own culture!!!

Saying that the industry is doing well on its own is a bad argument: they’re doing well because they’re able to enforce their copyrights very harshly. They’re doing it with DRM and they are doing it with lawsuits, three strikes laws and heaps of morally damaging propaganda. Personally, I would like for society to say ”Fuck off.”

This article describes some possible effects of a cultural flat-rate very well. None the less this is just a weak argument against such a payment model. I really miss the main reasons which are intentionally left away. I think the missing fairness is the most important argument at all. A cultural flat-rate will just bring old and unfair funding models from the analog world to the internet and carves them into stone.

Further I don’t agree with the opinion, that downloaders really want to support smaller artists at all. This might be a secret wish to many but at least they will just do – and support – what kind of art they want to listen/watch to. Under this circumstances it is most fair to spend the largest amount to the artists most downloaded. This includes definitely porn, too. Every other Industry showed by its own too, that it could stand for its own.

At least we definitely have the problem that the artistic industry has chosen the downloaders – which are a wide range of the population – as their enemy and criminalizes them . It is imperative to find a solution for that. One of this possible ways – one of the bad ones – is a cultural flat-rate for it might calm down the rights-owners. An other solution might be to legalize downloads at all and leave it to the industry to find ways for financing themselves. But here we get massive resistance from the rights-owners and from the established politics.

Of course it should be noted that the existing cultural flat-rate taxes on storage medias such as USB pen drives and CD/DVD discs are just as bad as the proposed broadband taxes. Often it’s enough with some simple deductive logic to see the apparent flaws of these kind of taxes. For instance, these taxes are meant to be there as a compensation for the loss of income for people within a very specific profession (people within the cultural sector) and this means that they will completely exclude people from other professions. I’m a programmer and I develop commercial software and as far as I’m aware I’ve not received a single cent from these taxes. If deductive logic was more consistently applied I think it would also be apparent that there is no ”loss of income” in the first place.

I am from Argentina, and we have a national film institute (INCAA – Instituto Nacional del Cine y las Artes Audiovisuales / National Film and Audiovisual Arts Institute). To the best of my knowledge, this institute finances many national films (and I have seen quite a bit of good national ones with the INCAA logo), but of course the funding this institute has is nowhere near the funding the French one most likely has.

Aside from that, and if I may be a bit off-topic here, I am grateful that people in other countries find our films good🙂 I take it you have seen The Secret In Her Eyes, but in case you have not seen these other ones, try finding them (I have a couple that maybe I can send to you): El Visitante, Kamchatka, 9 Reinas, Moebius, Leonera and Lluvia (titles in Spanish as they may be easier to find🙂

In Denmark these levies are clearly a money-grab by rights holders. For example, if I buy a digital camera I pay a levy which mostly goes to the established music industry. The excuse is that it is technically possible to remove the memory chip from the camera (thus ruining an expensive camera) and reuse the chip for storing digital music.

nejtillpirater has a problem understanding pirate logics… he consistently talks about corsairs… those that did and do have the authorisation from their sovereign to pillage resources from the opponents of these, no matter who they are or the reasons they have to oppose this sovereign.

I’d say the description covers far more accurately the actions of the ”Cultural Industry” cartels than of us Pirates that try to fight being pushed into slave dependance to any despotic sovereign.

””We know that more culture is being created than ever before, and the people who were predicting ”the end of music” or similar doomsday scenarios were simply wrong.”

The problem is not about creation of culture, the problem is that creators are being raped by the pirates.”

And there you showed everyone a vast lack of knowledge regarding copyright and a willingness to protected monopolists without afterthought.

Aren’t you aware that the purpose of this said copyright is in fact to promote the creation of culture? That the only reason this monopoly should be given out in the first place is if it in fact is deemed necessary for maintaining a healthy supply of culture in our society? That these monopolist easily can lose these privileges anytime if society finds that it’s no longer necessary for maintaining the level of culture creation? That this monopoly circumscribes freedoms and rights for all people and should only exist if one can motivate its existence?

So if there is no problem with culture creation today the problem lies in the copyright laws themselves, taking away freedoms and rights from regular people while penalizing them for normal human behavior. The only abnormal here is the current copyright legislation.

(..)The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as ”exploit now, pay later if at all.” It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences.

Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a ”pending list”, which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee.

Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment.

(…)

The more likely reason is that the record labels have had little motivation to pay up. As the balance has grown to over $50 million (Universal alone owes more than $30 million), David Basskin, the President and CEO of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd., notes in his affidavit that ”the record labels have devoted insufficient resources to identifying and paying the owners of musical works on the Pending Lists.” Basskin adds that some labels believe addressing the issue would be ”an unproductive use of their time.”(…)

Having engaged in widespread copyright infringement for over 20 years, the CRIA members now face the prospect of far greater liability. The class action seeks the option of statutory damages for each infringement. At $20,000 per infringement (the amount owed on some songs exceed this amount), potential liability exceeds $6 billion. These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that has led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millions in damages.

The largest copyright class action in Canadian history received court approval yesterday, with the four major record labels that comprise the Canadian Recording Industry Association – EMI Music Canada Inc., Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. – agreeing to pay over $50 million to settle claims involving hundreds of thousands of copyright infringements. The labels admit no liability, though the $50 million settlement speaks for itself. The industry practices, which involved profiting from thousands of sound recordings without paying royalties, was described in the lawsuit as ”exploit now, pay later if at all.” The settlement includes a new system for payment of royalties that should ensure that the situation does not repeat itself.

Just to be clear, you feel that it is appropriate to use the term rape to describe an intrusion into a monopoly over manufacturing and distribution of luxury items, a monopoly that no existing evidence can back up is even needed to achieve the goal of economical copyright as a concept, a monopoly that exists solely by performing an intrusion into peoples own physical property, and stealing it from them? And therefore a monopoly that no right minded liberal or free market-supporter(such as voters for Swedish political party Moderaterna) ever would defend?

You don’t think that people who actually has been raped, according to the correct use of the term, feel a bit sickened by you comparing their horrible trauma to someone disregarding an illegitimate monopoly?

”Aren’t you aware that the purpose of this said copyright is in fact to promote the creation of culture?”

THE purpose? The ONLY purpose? I suppose you’re referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause and
”To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

What about SECURING and EXCLUSIVE RIGHT? The pirates don’t respect those rights so according to your own reasoning, the pirates seem to be against creation of culture.

”You don’t think that people who actually has been raped, according to the correct use of the term, feel a bit sickened by you comparing their horrible trauma to someone disregarding an illegitimate monopoly?”

No, most people can differ from using a word to the letter or figuratively.

Learn to read (if you failed to understand) or stop trying to confuse the issue (if you’re intentionally trying to do so), or both, as applicable. It says ”by securing”. Note the word ”by”. It means that the following part is a means (as in means to an end) and not an end in itself. The end – the purpose, that is – is the first part, to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

The purpose of copyright has nothing to do with securing (for limited times) any rights to authors and inventors. That’s just one way (there are others) to fulfil the actual purpose, which is the promoting part.

Thus, it follows that your closing statement ”pirates seem to be against creation of culture” is false. Based on what you’d ought to know by know, it’s actually an outright lie. Not surprising, coming from you, but deserves to be pointed out for those less accustomed to your antics.

… if they are the creators EXCLUSIVE rights… why is it so easy to sign that exclusivity away and so damn hard to get it back, and why, being EXCLUSIVE… is there any reason for them lasting far beyond the creators lifetime? You did quote ”… limited time… Authors and Inventors … ”. Real physical persons are granted these rights in exchange for their creativity… no corporations are mentioned, and no rights beyond those a physical person can manage while alive where meant to be.😉 .

You’re really trying hard to make yourself look bad. You should probably not be doing that if you want to be listened to.

You cited: ”You don’t think that people who actually has been raped, according to the correct use of the term, feel a bit sickened by you comparing their horrible trauma to someone disregarding an illegitimate monopoly?”

And then, you wrote: ”No, most people can differ from using a word to the letter or figuratively.”

While correct in principle, most people (but apparently not you) also have the ability to use certain words with discretion.

”What about SECURING and EXCLUSIVE RIGHT? The pirates don’t respect those rights so according to your own reasoning, the pirates seem to be against creation of culture.”

My own reason? Can you at a bare minimum keep your fabrications to yourself and stop being dishonest?

I wrote about the purpose of copyright which has nothing to do with whether the laws are followed or not, and considering that you yourself acknowledged the fact that there is no problem with the creation of culture one can wonder how you reached your flawed conclusion.

Why are you resorting to ad-hominem tactics, trying to connect my signature Fredrika, with a real life identity, in this case Amelia Andersdotter?

I’ve explained to you over and over again, that that’s not the same thing as when i connect your three different signatures, that you yourself openly has admitted to using. The reason l’m doing that, is so that no one should try to answer arguments put forward by you multiple times, believes that you are different multiple individuals, just because you post under different signatures. That’s not an ad hominem-tactic. What you’re doing however is.

Why are you over and over again resorting to ad hominem-tactics, when you often claim to never do so?

> ”As far as I know, most liberal political parties defend copyright.

Copyright as a concept, yes. The monopoly within the copyright legislation, not necessarily. A political party that calls themselves liberals should obviously never defend a legislative monopoly that absolutely no evidence indicates is needed. The reason for that is because defending a legislative monopoly that no evidence indicates benefits society as a whole(but obviously the monopoly holder), is fascism.

> ” I suppose that ”liberal” in your world is anarco-liberal..”

No, i mean liberal as in being for a free market, and against monopolies, that absolutely no evidence indicates is necessary for society’s welfare, economical such, or culturally such.

That mentions upphovsrätt/copyright, which is a concept, It does not mention the monopoly within the copyright legislation. If however Moderaternas confused statement indeed refers to the monopoly in the actual copyright legislation, you should ask them how they can stand behind a monopoly that performs an intrusion in to peoples property right and performs theft, a monopoly that no evidence supports the need for.

> ”No, most people can differ from using a word to the letter or figuratively.”

Most people? So you are open to the possibility, that some people, maybe those who according to the correct use of the term, actually has been raped, feel a bit sickened by your illogical comparison between their horrible trauma, to someone disregarding an illegitimate monopoly?

But you feel that’s it’s more important to use such powerful terms, to describe an intrusion into a monopoly, than to show consideration to actual rape victims, even if you risk dilute the meaning of the expression, and their pain?

Do you yourself have any actual first hand experience of having a copyright monopoly intruded into, so that you can vouch for that it is a horrible and disgusting experience, and that the term is appropriate to use as you did?

Or are you just throwing out powerful terms and expressions, to cover for the painfully obvious fact that you actually have no sustainable arguments to support your confused claims or illogical conclusions?

Pelle/Urban/nejtillpirater — 18 juni 2011 @ 15:33

> ””To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

>”What about SECURING and EXCLUSIVE RIGHT?”

As several others already pointed out, you seem to have missed the word by there, or failed to understand how that word divides the sentence you quoted, and as a result you have confused the means with the end. What comes after by is the tool that society uses, to achieve the goal, and furthering the purpose of copyright, which is described before the by.

”The reason l’m doing that, is so that no one should try to answer arguments put forward by you multiple times, believes that you are different multiple individuals, just because you post under different signatures.”

I don’t post under different signatures, I post under the signature nejtillpirater. So please stop your Ad Hominem.
I’ve been using the Internet from the start, probable even before you were born. During the years I’ve used different identities and I can’t see the point of mentioning all of them when I post in forums. I haven’t used either Pelle or Urban for more than a year. You have used at least Fredrika, Anonym and Amelia Andersdotter, three different signatures, the last couple of days.

If you want, I make you an offer involving both of us to stop referring to multiple signatures. I stopped unilaterally but you kept on with it so I reverted to doing it in the same way as you did. Do you accept my offer? If not, what’s the purpose?

The problem is that although copyright has been said to promote the creation of culture, it’s not the only purpose of copyright today. And even if it were the only purpose, not by any means. You seem to believe that the end justifies the means. You put the right of downloading copies for luxory over the rights of the creator.

> ”I don’t post under different signatures, I post under the signature nejtillpirater. So please stop your Ad Hominem.”

You don’t understand what part that constitutes the ad hominem-tactic, do you? It’s trying to connect a signature, with a real life identity, which is what you alone do, but i don’t.

> ”I’ve been using the Internet from the start, probable even before you were born.”

Are you aware that that’s another ad hominem-tactic you just used, trying to imply that my age is lower then yours, and that therefore my argument’s are worth less than yours?

> ” During the years I’ve used different identities and I can’t see the point of mentioning all of them when I post in forums.”

As i have told you before, repeatedly, you don’t have to. I’ll stop addressing you in that way as soon as you make a note on your about page about your previous multiple signatures.

> ” I haven’t used either Pelle or Urban for more than a year.”

Yet you use the same arguments over and over again, under different signatures, even when they have been thoroughly proven false. That’s exactly why it’s important to point out to others that if they have addressed an argument once, to Pelle or Urban, they don’t have to do it all over again, to NTP, thinking that this is a new person.

> ”You have used at least Fredrika, Anonym and Amelia Andersdotter, three different signatures, the last couple of days.”

What you believe is irrelevant. I have never admitted to using Amelia Andersdotter as a signature. That’s what makes it an ad hominem-tactic, trying to connect my signature, to a real life identity. That’s what you alone resort to.

You on the other hand has openly admitted to using the signatures Pelle and Urban. That’s makes it a completely different case. Do you really don’t understand that significant difference? And anonym, please, drop that, i have never used that signature on purpose, or admitted to it? By accident one of my comments got posted as anonymonce, and i immediately posted a remark afterwards pointing that fact out. That again is not the same thing as when you use multiple signatures and use the same fallen arguments over and over again, appearing to be multiple persons.

>”If you want, I make you an offer involving both of us to stop referring to multiple signatures. I stopped unilaterally but you kept on with it so I reverted to doing it in the same way as you did. Do you accept my offer? If not, what’s the purpose?”

As above, i’ve explained that many times before, although you don’t seem to understand it. Maybe this time? The fact that i point out something that you yourself has openly admitted, which therefore isn’t an ad hominem-tactic, does not make it ok for you to resort to ad hominem-tactics, which is exactly what only you, out of us two, do, when you try to connect my signature with a real life identify.

@Pelle/Urban/nejtillpirater — 18 juni 2011 @ 18:00

> ”You put the right of downloading copies for luxory over the rights of the creator.”

A more correct way to put it, to describe what actually takes place, when one performs filesharing, is that one put one’s own physical property right, over a monopoly of manufacturing and distributing luxury products, a monopoly that no evidence can supports is needed, a monopoly that performs theft of peoples own physical property.

Of course peoples own property right should be put before an illegitimate monopoly, that performs theft?

”That again is not the same thing as when you use multiple signatures and use the same fallen arguments over and over again, appearing to be multiple persons.”

I sometimes use the same arguments, and so do you.

i don’t use multiple signatures, I’ve been using nejtillpirater only for more than a year. If your regular false accusations of my posting under multiple signatures, implying that I do that frequently and recently, is not Ad Hominem, you clearly don’t understand what Ad Hominem is:

”Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.”

I have my own reason to consider flat-rate a bad solution. I live in Brazil, a county in development, and government have interest in make internet access as cheap as possible. Create a new tax to penalize internet users by their ”infringements” (also know as ordinary use of the internet) looks like go against this. In my country, the minority, that have an better money condition, can use broadband connection at home. Majority people uses public computers in cybercafes, at work or at school. People don’t have interest in pay a new tax to access internet, neither government in implement an expensive internet. Especially, people consider a bad idea pay their money to support the foreign cultural industry. Nowadays, my government want support national culture production with money from taxes. I can’t imagine how the money can distributed considering factors like types of licences (I can download CC or public domain too), national borders, etc. Unfortunately, flat-rate don’t solve any problem, only create another one.

The problem is that although copyright has been said to promote the creation of culture, it’s not the only purpose of copyright today.”

What other legitimate purposes do you believe that the copyright has?

” (…) You put the right of downloading copies for luxory over the rights of the creator.”

The other way around would just be silly and illogical, wouldn’t it? Why would I go out and defend a monopoly that circumscribes peoples freedoms and rights if there is no trace of fact-based evidence that it’s needed for fulfilling the purpose of the economical part of copyright? Why would I go out on a crusade defending an artificially ownership of information, as well as artificially rights to take away freedoms and rights from all people, just to protect some monopolists interests? Why would I ever argue that creators need the right to deprive ordinary people of their freedoms and rights just because the creators want to force a particular business model on the world?

”Why would I ever argue that creators need the right to deprive ordinary people of their freedoms and rights just because the creators want to force a particular business model on the world?”

Force a particular business model on the world just like McDonald’s, Ikea and Apple does?

Are thieves ”ordinary people”?
A shoplifter seems to believe he/her has certain rights to steal goods instead of paying for it according to the shops particular business model. There are no such rights..

The difference here of course is that you put claims and arguments forward, others then with evidence or logic shows why your claims or argument are false, then you as usual quietly leaves that particular thread, because your arguments where refuted and proven wrong. They have now fallen. They were incorrect. But then you use them again, some time later. Basically all arguments you use now, you have already used under your previous signatures, and they were already then refuted and proven to be wrong.

> ”i don’t use multiple signatures, I’ve been using nejtillpirater only for more than a year.”

That’s your claim. Since it’s impossible for me to keep 100% track of all your comments on the net, i can not verify that you did not post comments under your other signature recently, signatures that you yourself has admitted are yours.

Implying? Since i can’t be sure of when you last used them, there’s logically no implying of such. The only thing i do know is that you have used them. That’s the only thong i can know for sure.

> ”usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument”

Which i have not done by addressing you as Pelle/Urban/nejtillpirater. Belittling is what you did when you accused my age of being lower then yours.

> ”..but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws”

Which i have not done by addressing you as Pelle/Urban/nejtillpirater. Bringing others attention to your multiple signatures is not the same as pointing out an apparent character flaw.

> ”or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument.”

And as i said, they are not irrelevant, because every argument you put forward, you have have already put forward before, under your previous signatures, and they all have been proven invalid.

@nejtillpirater — 19 juni 2011 @ 6:36

> ”Force a particular business model on the world just like McDonald’s, Ikea and Apple does?”

McDonald’s, Ikea and Apple does not force their business model on people. People are well within their freedom to create their own McDonald’s, Ikea and Apple products at home, with their own property, and using or sharing them freely with others. The only thing the trademark monopoly does, is forbids you to sell them, claiming that the products you manufactured are actually McDonald’s, Ikea and Apple products.

Copyright holders on the other hand, are trying to force people to stop manufacturing their own copies at home, something people do with their own physical property, and instead bullying them into buying products through their business model of choice. That is exactly forcing a certain business model on the world, the business model of selling physical copies to users. That business model is simply not needed or sought after any more, since people can perform that task themselves.

If a business model is not needed or sought after by society any more, why should we try to protect that particular business model, with artificial help, such as a monopoly? According to liberalism, free market rules, and Moderaterna-politics, shouldn’t such business models simply be put to sleep, and relegated to the past?

> ”Are thieves ”ordinary people”?”

Since filesharer’s aren’t thieves, that question isn’t really relevant, now is it? Performing an intrusion into a monopoly can never be theft. Look it up in a dictionary or the law book, and you’ll find that to be a fact. And as iv’e explained to you, the only theft here is the copyright monopoly, since it takes away peoples right to their own physical property.

I also notice that you have dropped several of your previous points argued?

You tried to quote a phrase from the American Constitution, but you failed to understand what it actually meant. When that was pointed out to you, you stopped responding to that thread.

When asked what ”other legitimate purposes do you believe that the copyright has”, you could not produce an answer.

I asked you about your previous dubious use of certain powerful terms, and if you were open to the possibility that some particular people could be offended by that use, and if you had any relevant first hand experience of copyright infringement, so that you knew if it felt equally horrible. You stopped responding to that thread.

I pointed out that Moderaterna did not defend the copyright monopoly, as you claimed they did, and i pointed out that there’s a difference between the concept of copyright, and the copyright monopoly . You then stopped responding to that thread

I explained to you that liberal political parties obviously don’t defend monopolies that no evidence can support is needed. You stopped responding to that thread.

That’s some of the argumentative threads that you have completely stopped addressing any further in this comment thread, when your claims and argument were refuted.

That’s a pattern i’ve seen from you before, many times. Putting forward claims and arguments, but never being able to back them up, when refuted.

While were at it, let’s return to your initial claim: ”the problem is that creators are being raped by the pirates”.

If we first try to ignore your dubious use of words, and instead rewrite the sentence to what actually happens, in the following manner: The problem is that copyright holders are having their monopolies disregarded by pirates.

As we’ve already established, there no evidence to support any actual need for such a monopoly. So exactly what’s constitutes a problem? The only problem i can see, is that they unfortunately are privileged with the monopoly in the first place, which they obviously shouldn’t be, since no evidence can be put forward to support that a need for this monopoly even exists?

Well, if that is a problem, then the logical solution would be for people to disregard the monopoly. Which hundreds of millions of filesharer’s already do. It seems filesharer’s are not the problem, but they are actually the solution!? =)

People always stop responding, otherwise there would be a never ending discussion. There are many reasons for stopping; lack of time, pointless to continue etc. You also stop responding, people do that and nothing can be proven by this fact… And as a I’ve pointed out to you several times, your long responses with never ending quotations are a pain to handle and if you want more answers you should address that problem in my opinion.

”The only problem i can see, is that they unfortunately are privileged with the monopoly in the first place, which they obviously shouldn’t be, since no evidence can be put forward to support that a need for this monopoly even exists?”

Evidence? Most people think that the copyright is necessary. If it’s a monopoly or not can be discussed but there are so much ”culture” available for free, for rental or for buying legally that the ”right” to download copies and not respecting the author’s rights can’t be defended. Download for luxory is not more important than the author’s rights, no evidence is needed to understand this.

> ”People always stop responding, otherwise there would be a never ending discussion. There are many reasons for stopping; lack of time, pointless to continue etc.”

Yes, but you always seem to stop responding when every claim or argument you’ve put forward has been refuted and proven wrong.

> ” You also stop responding”

Actually, no, i do not when someone put forward an actual argument against mine.

> ”your long responses with never ending quotations are a pain to handle”

I quote the relevant parts that i respond to, so that others easily can see what i respond to. Are you having trouble reading my answers? You should not have, since the quotations i provide are in italic, and my responses are plain.

When you respond to what i write, you are free to respond in any format you choose. The fact that you can’t come up with something to write is in no way relevant to the format of my comments.

> ”Evidence?”

Yes, evidence, you know that part that all legitimate legislation must be built upon?

> ”Most people think that the copyright is necessary.”

Copyright has a concept is something that is widely accepted yes. But that copyright is accepted on a conceptual level is not the same thing as that the public deems any possible intrusions into their privacy to be necessary in the copyright legislation. If we look at those numbers that actually exists in many different research studies, the public does not feel that the monopoly within the copyright legislation should privilege the copyright holder with control over non-profit distribution. That is why hundreds of millions of filesharers feel that it is perfectly legitimate and morally acceptable to fileshare as much as possible.

Second, what people think is irrelevant, when it comes to prohibition through legislation. Prohibition through legislation has certain rules to uphold to, and one of them is actual need, that can be proven with evidence. That’s the first step where the parts of the copyright monopoly that controls non-profit distribution fails immediately.

> ”If it’s a monopoly or not can be discussed”

No, according to the dictionary a government granted exclusive legal right to perform distribution and trading with a product, a distribution and trading that anyone physically can perform, if they want to, is clearly a legislative monopoly. Punch in the word copyright in any dictionary or Wikipedia and you’ll find this to be a fact. Intellectual property can only exist through a monopoly that performs an intrusion into other peoples physical property. Why you try to deny this fact is beyond me.

> ”but there are so much ”culture” available for free, for rental or for buying legally that the ”right” to download copies and not respecting the author’s rights can’t be defended.”

As i have told you before, society does not work in that order, that people have to justify their actions? You are reversing the order of society in that illogical argument. The starting point in society is that you are able to download as much as you want. Afterwards comes eventual prohibition that forbids that action.

The only thing in society that has to be justified is that prohibition, in this case the copyright monopoly . Why should people have their property intruded to by a monopoly, that performs theft? That’s the only thing that has to be justified.

Since that obviously has failed, it’s ok to fileshare has mush as one wants, and no justification is needed from the people that choose to fileshare. They can do it for whatever reason they see fit, and it’s a completely legitimate action.

> ”Download for luxory is not more important than the author’s rights, no evidence is needed to understand this.”

But that sentence is false, since it also reverses the order of society. The correct way to put that sentence is in the following order: Privileging the copyright holder with a monopoly over non-profit distribution of luxury items, is no more important than people’s right to their own physical property, or their rights to private communication. No evidence is needed to understand this.

”Why would I ever argue that creators need the right to deprive ordinary people of their freedoms and rights just because the creators want to force a particular business model on the world?”

Force a particular business model on the world just like McDonald’s, Ikea and Apple does?”

No. I Refer to Fredrika’s answer above. She explained this thoroughly and well.

”Are thieves ”ordinary people”?(…)”

This question is totally irrelevant as filesharers aren’t thieves. Your parable collapses under its own weight for this reason alone. Or as Fredrika so nicely puts it: ”And as iv’e explained to you, the only theft here is the copyright monopoly, since it takes away peoples right to their own physical property.”

@Fredrika
(…)And as a I’ve pointed out to you several times, your long responses with never ending quotations are a pain to handle and if you want more answers you should address that problem in my opinion.

You can’t seriously be blaming this organized use of quotes for your lack of responses?

”And as iv’e explained to you, the only theft here is the copyright monopoly, since it takes away peoples right to their own physical property.”

Oh, so it’s OK to use the word theft when it’s beneficial for pirates but not otherwise?

”You can’t seriously be blaming this organized use of quotes for your lack of responses?”

Yes I can. It may be organized but it’s also ”too much”. I have the right to answer or ignore any comment or part of a comment. Most people do it that way and without getting false accusations from people like Fredrika.

”And as iv’e explained to you, the only theft here is the copyright monopoly, since it takes away peoples right to their own physical property.”

Oh, so it’s OK to use the word theft when it’s beneficial for pirates but not otherwise?”

No. It’s ok to use the word theft when the matter in fact is about theft. The concept of theft has been explained for your time after time already, so one would think that it wouldn’t be necessary to do again.

It would also be nice if you could learn to quote people properly, at least so that you can contribute the text to the right person…

””You can’t seriously be blaming this organized use of quotes for your lack of responses?”

Yes I can. It may be organized but it’s also ”too much”. I have the right to answer or ignore any comment or part of a comment. Most people do it that way and without getting false accusations from people like Fredrika.”

Of course you can blame the use of structured and organized argumentation styles for your lack of responses, but that wasn’t the point. It’s just that it’s an extremely weak excuse for refusing to answer questions. Fredrikas’ answer to every little point of yours would be the same with or without this particular structure.

”It’s just that it’s an extremely weak excuse for refusing to answer questions.”

I don’t refuse, I simply don’t answer every single response and each separate part of such a response. You’re way off topic and I think that Christian should warn you and Fredrika for your behavior. Instead of discussing the issues, your responses are full of irrelevant and false accusations.

”It’s just that it’s an extremely weak excuse for refusing to answer questions.”

I don’t refuse, I simply don’t answer every single response and each separate part of such a response.

You are trying to say that you don’t refuse to answer questions by stating that you refuse to answer some responses. Good job there…

You’re way off topic(…)

Then please explain where and why you think that I’m off topic? Every single response to you have been on topic in relation to what you wrote.

(…)and I think that Christian should warn you and Fredrika for your behavior.

What behavior should I be warned for in your personal opinion? If Engström hasn’t warned you yet for your constant ”Ad Hominem”-arguments and dishonest quotation techniques on this blog, then I’m fairly certain that he won’t warn me for discussing all matters in an objectively way.

(…)Instead of discussing the issues, your responses are full of irrelevant and false accusations.

I have discussed the different issues throughout this entire page objectively. All my answers are totally relevant to the piece of text that I reply to, and I certainly don’t throw around false accusations…

My guess is that you updated your about-page just before posting to Fredrika. But you write the reply to Fredrika in a way that it sounds like it has always been there. Would have been more honest of you to simply reply saying you have now updated your about page to include the Urban/Pelle info.

NejTillPirater desperately continue to seek arguments against his antagonists. In this blog post he is desperately trying to hide his inability to respond by accusing his antagonists for writing responses that are too long than he has time to read. Lack of time is not the reason he does not respond and he knows that. NejTillPirater usually refuses to answer when he is proven wrong which happens quite a lot:) This is a tactics he has been using for quite some time. He seldom admits that he is wrong, he just quietly leaves the discussion. You can see this for yourself if you backtrack his replies in this blogspost and previous posts on this blog related to his favorite subjects. He usually post comments on subjects that are related to ”Julian Assange”, ”Copyright Infringement” ”Child Porn Legislation” and ”Internet Censorship”.

Just a statement, the note is available. No statement regarding that is has always been there. She asked for a note, she got one.

”Would have been more honest of you to simply reply saying you have now updated your about page to include the Urban/Pelle info.”

Honest? I was completely honest. I was of no relevance when the note was added. She wanted the note, I produced it. She gave up referring to multiple identities from now, problem solved! You’re still referring to multiple identities. Not satisfied with the note?

”Lack of time is not the reason he does not respond and he knows that. NejTillPirater usually refuses to answer when he is proven wrong which happens quite a lot”

My lack of time or not is only for me to judge. Lack of response is not a refusal to response, in your opinion the forums in the world are so full of refusals… I have posted several questions to Christian Engström here, some answered, most not answered. Does he refuse to answer? I don’t see it that way. Perhaps avoiding answer in some cases, not wanting to answer, lack of time, haven’t read each answer etc. Christian is just a human being and so am I.

”He usually post comments on subjects that are related to ”Julian Assange”, ”Copyright Infringement” ”Child Porn Legislation” and ”Internet Censorship”.”

Correct, and such subjects are also dominant in Christians blog. If he stops posting on those subjects, I can’t comment on such subjects, problem solved?

(…)I have posted several questions to Christian Engström here, some answered, most not answered. Does he refuse to answer? I don’t see it that way.(…)

It might be, especially if the person keeps answering every other argument and/or questions on the page except the ones in question. The big difference between you and Engström is that you have already posted about 12 comments and are still continuing, while Engström hasn’t posted a single one yet and thus aren’t even involved in the discussions.

It wasn’t? That’s rich. It has a HUGE relevance, since you just added it. Fredrika’s claim up to that point was relevant. You on the other hand were saying Fredrika was doing this a personal attack against you. Then you post a comment about how this information is on your about-page, wording it in a way that you make it seem like it has always been there. That IS dishonest. Too bad I called you on it though. I guess with all your wast knowledge of IT (as you claim) you must have forgotten about caching. lol You are a very manipulative poster that is trying to use wording to your own advantage. You also use ad-hominem arguments where ever you can, and if that fails, you don’t mind stooping to the level of personal attacks or even slander. And before you accuse me of personal attacks, remember, all these things can be proven by anyone, since you have posted it online. (Even changing the contents doesn’t change that, it can ALWAYS be brought back)

P.S. I will still call you Urban/NTP, since a lot of ppl still doesn’t know you are one and the same. Everybody don’t go visit your site you know – even if I think you like to think so.

”McDonald’s, Ikea and Apple does not force their business model on people. People are well within their freedom to create their own McDonald’s, Ikea and Apple products at home, with their own property, and using or sharing them freely with others. The only thing the trademark monopoly does, is forbids you to sell them, claiming that the products you manufactured are actually McDonald’s, Ikea and Apple products.

Copyright holders on the other hand, are trying to force people to stop manufacturing their own copies at home, something people do with their own physical property, and instead bullying them into buying products through their business model of choice. That is exactly forcing a certain business model on the world, the business model of selling physical copies to users. That business model is simply not needed or sought after any more, since people can perform that task themselves.”

How were you thinking when you come up with this? Were you even thinking? EVERYONE can make their own music at home!!!! They can even make somebody elses music! But they are not allowed to sell it as their own without a license, just as you can’t open a McDonalds without having a License!

> ”How were you thinking when you come up with this? Were you even thinking?”

Oh yes, possibly a bit more then you even it seems, as we’re about to find out.. =)

> ”EVERYONE can make their own music at home!!!!”

I have not claimed otherwise.

> ” They can even make somebody elses music!”

I have not claimed otherwise.

> ”But they are not allowed to sell it as their own without a license..”

Correct, because of the copyright monopoly. The monopoly that the copyright holders use to try to force their business model on the world. The business model of selling copies, for profit. A business model that is unnecessary and no longer sought after by people, since people can make their own copies, through non-profit filesharing.

> ”..just as you can’t open a McDonalds without having a License!”

Correct, because of the trademark monopoly, you’re not allowed to use the McDonalds logo and name in conjunction with an operation with intent to profit.

– Of course, you spend your time as you please. But again, time is not an issue for you in this case and you are well aware of that.

NTP ”Lack of response is not a refusal to response, in your opinion the forums in the world are so full of refusals… I have posted several questions to Christian Engström here, some answered, most not answered. Does he refuse to answer? I don’t see it that way. Perhaps avoiding answer in some cases, not wnting to answer, lack of time, haven’t read each answer etc. Christian is just a human being and so am I.”

– I did not say it was like that in general. It is in your case though, but I don’t expect you to admit it. One can easily see that you often turn silent and quietly leaves the discussion when you are proven wrong. It is very obvious that you don’t have any good arguments left in these cases. A few examples of your comments won’t perhaps show this but an entire discussion will. People can easily judge this for themsleves simply by reading a number of discussions that you have participated in.

NTP ”Correct, and such subjects are also dominant in Christians blog. If he stops posting on those subjects, I can’t comment on such subjects, problem solved?”

– I never said it was a problem, hence no problem to be solved. I just mentioned that you posted comments to ”Julian Assange”, ”Copyright Infringement” ”Child Porn Legislation” and ”Internet Censorship” related discussions very frequently. You do it in this blog and other blogs as well. Like I said earlier, people can check out this blog and the other blogs and judge for themselves.

Fredrika or Amelia or Scary or whatever you call yourselt. start THINKING! And make seek some treatment for your problems.

Are you having a hard time arguing against Fredrikas´answers or is there any other particular reason for you to suddenly switch to ”Ad Hominem”-mode? Either way, trying to group together several persons by implying that they are the same person, telling this imaginary person to start thinking, and finally asking this imaginary person to threat some vague imaginary problems is like a class book example of how to lose an argument.

No. Do you have any problems with my comment above? Like defending a person from personal attacks and faulty accusations? Or what are your reason for resorting to some strange kind of ”guilt by association”-argument here?

Fredrika or Amelia or Scary or whatever you call yourselt. start THINKING! And make seek some treatment for your problems.

Her problems seem to be real and grave.

Because not everyone would have the energy to continue discussing with people more interested in personal attacks than civil discussions and who have made such fine contributions to the discussion? I would stop throwing stones in a glass house if I were you…

You are deliberately trying to mix Professor, Fredrik, Amelia and Scary into the same person. They are not the same person. All of them are serious debaters and have contributed with very good arguments to the discussions. You can easily see that if you follow the discussion from beginning to end. Some debaters also launch personal attacks against them, out of desperation, after losing one argument after another against them:)

The troll is obviously having fun and is not interested in fact, truth, or anything of the sort. Since the name-muddling started with a specific individual (not the anonymous moron having fun right now) it’s quite clear where the troll’s sympathies lie and the silence from the individual in question, in light of the ongoing activity, is telling, which I’ll remember in the future.

”Fredrika or Amelia or Scary or whatever you call yourselt. start THINKING! And make seek some treatment for your problems.”

Kommentar av Putte Bommelstein III — 21 juni 2011 @ 17:12

Actually, this right here would be my first post on this matter.

It doesn’t surprise me at all to see that as usual whenever a group of people start pressing ”nejtillpirater” on facts up pop a number of spontaneously generated nicknames carrying the same agenda. ”Duru Mvete”, ”Putte Bommelstein III” and so forth.

Honestly, do you really think any person reading this blog (or related ones) fail to see the difference between posters who have steady and consistently generated responses over long periods of time – and your ”one time wonder nicks”?

The only one you are embarrassing is yourself. Fredrika, professorn, Amelia aren’t me. But i suppose it would help your cause a great deal if you could start claiming we were instead of refuting what are factual arguments in our favour.

Yes, obviously Mr. anonymous bommelstein is a troll. Likely the same one which has appeared before whenever facts proved to be too stringently against whatever nonsense nejtillpirater was spouting.

Speaking of which, given that i just got back here…

””You don’t think that people who actually has been raped, according to the correct use of the term, feel a bit sickened by you comparing their horrible trauma to someone disregarding an illegitimate monopoly?”

No, most people can differ from using a word to the letter or figuratively.”

Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 juni 2011 @ 15:48

Obviously you haven’t ever used the word ”rape” in a conversation with a woman, let alone an actual rape victim. The rest of your opinions, dishonest argumentation and attempts to revise what history or law says is one matter but this one goes beyond merely bad taste.

If i wave a fist in front of your face it doesn’t mean i murdered you either. Either in an ordinary conversation or in correspondence even drawing the parallell means people will start doubting your sanity or ability to converse civilly.

> ”So Scary thats a clear admission that you just like Amelia/Fredrika/Anonymous/Falkvvinge etc. use several nicknames?”

To clarify things, since you seem to be confused, i, Fredrika, have never admitted to using several nicknames, which is what you in your question to S.D.M. seems to suggest would have taken place at some earlier point in time. It has not.

If there is any comment of mine which you have interpreted in that way, please tell me which one that is, and i will help you read it properly, and explain how you have misread it, and therefore misunderstood the comment in question.

So Scary thats a clear admission that you just like Amelia/Fredrika/Anonymous/Falkvvinge etc. use several nicknames? Thanks for the clarification.

How did you come to this conclusion? Was it this line?

Actually, this right here would be my first post on this matter.

I guess not. Was it this line?

The only one you are embarrassing is yourself. Fredrika, professorn, Amelia aren’t me. But i suppose it would help your cause a great deal if you could start claiming we were instead of refuting what are factual arguments in our favour.

No, not that one either. Seems like we are out of lines. The only thing thats left is your silly ”Ad-Hominem”-arguments.

OK! Case closed! Most of you, all suffer from multiple personality-confusion brought on by hybris and by overconsumption of pirated films music and books ie theft of intellectual properties which unfortunatelt have not given you any more IQ. On the contrary you seem less sharp in your soggy brains than ever.

1. There is only a few people here who are having problems with keeping apart different personalities and ultimately resorting to ”Ad Hominem”-arguments by grouping them all together
2. The so called ”pirated films” are exactly the same films you can buy in the store when it comes to the content.
3. There is no such thing as ”theft of intellectual properties”
4.Isn’t it a little ironic to quiestion other peoples’ IQ when you yourself haven’t managed to put together one single comment not full of argumentation errors?

Another thing that might need to be clarified here for irregular visitors, the seemingly confused signature Joshua 3ree is obviously not the same person as well known and very sensible pirate Johnny ”Joshua Tree/Enligt Min Humla” Olsson.

@Joshua 3ree — 29 juni 2011 @ 20:31

> ”ie theft of intellectual properties..”

You cannot perform theft of intellectual property. You can perform an intrusion into a intellectual property monopoly. Performing an intrusion into a monopoly is obviously never theft. Please read up on current laws or a dictionary, and you’ll find this to be an indisputable fact.

> ”how come speculating pirates now speak about virtual bitcoins having been stolen on the net?”

I’m not familiar with the topic you refer to, but i assume it’s because a number of specific bitcoins has been taken from it’s owner, so that he no longer has access to them? That’s theft, when something is taken from it’s owner, so that he no longer has access to it, regardless of whether the item is physical or virtual?

Are you confusing some specific virtual objects, that only one person can have access to at once, with an intellectual work, that many can access at the same time, if they lustfully manufacture their own physical copies, possibly by performing an intrusion into a sadly illegitimate and non-functioning old fashioned government-granted monopoly?

As i explained above, performing an intrusion into a government-granted monopoly is never theft, it’s an infringement. Please read up on current laws or a dictionary, and you’ll find this to be an indisputable fact.

Now now, temper temper!! is it really necessary to throw out ad hominem-tactics and insults like that, leading to instant argumentative defeat by default? An unsuccessful attempt to disguise the fact that it’s you who have to ask others to explain obvious fundamental facts to you? =)

Scary Professor Fredrika how come speculating pirates now speak about virtual bitcoins having been stolen on the net?

What do you mean? If you someone get access to your bank account they can steal your (virtual) money. The same principle applies to bitcoins. I fail to see why you think that reports of money theft would be relevant to our discussion.

What you, wrongly, implied above were that overconsumption of pirated films and books would somehow be theft of intellectual properties, which it isn’t.

I doubt your soggy brain have a believable explanation on this, but please try!

Explanation to what exactly? To why persons who have lost money tells other people about it?

OK so your soggy brains could not explain why some virtual stuff can be stolen and some can’t…

What you, wrongly, implied above were that overconsumption of pirated films and books would somehow be considered as theft, which it isn’t. Do you deny this actuality? Do you deny the fact that ”illegal file sharers” by copying and sharing each other’s digital files do not, in any way, deprive any right holders of their digital copies? Do you deny the simple fact that copying does not equal theft? Aren’t you aware that despite how many lame ”Ad Hominem”-attacks you continue to launch in this comment field, you will still fail to hide your inability to differentiate between the acts of copying things and stealing them?

> ”OK so your soggy brains could not explain why some virtual stuff can be stolen and some can’t…”

Actually, i did, you just didn’t understand the explanation it seems? Is it really my brain that is soggy, when it’s you who doesn’t understand an explanation as it is given to you?

For theft to take place, i.e. something to be stolen, a specific item must be taken from it’s owner, so that he no longer has access to that specific item. That’s what takes place when you deprive someone of an item, whether its physical or virtual.

I wrote that phrase in my previous reply, and it’s the most important one that answers your question in the most basic way, but since it for some reason didn’t get through, i’ll highlight it again:

—> no longer has access to that specific item <—

When you perform an intrusion into a monopoly, and manufacture an item on your own, with your own physical property, through copying, no specific item is taken from any owner, so that the person in question no longer has access to it. That why it’s not theft, according neither to the law or a dictionary.

The problem here with your comprehension of these indisputable facts, i assume, since you use the very misleading term ”virtual stuff”, occurs because you’ve misunderstood the term ”intellectual property”.

This is indeed a very misleading term, since intellectual property is not an actual property or ”virtual stuff”, it’s on the contrary a legislative government-granted monopoly that performs an intrusion into others people actual property, to create an artificial, or virtual if you prefer, scarcity, that isn’t natural and simply doesn’t exist.

So it’s actually the copyright monopoly that performs what could be described as theft, in the complete opposite direction from what you seem to believe.

Performing an intrusion into a government-granted legislative monopoly is called an infringement. That’s the correct term and the most descriptive one. Performing an infringement to a government-granted monopoly, has basically nothing in common with theft. Those are two completely different things, that have more differences than similarities.

Did you understand the explanation this time, or should i prepare for even more meaningless and empty accusations, combined with insults and Poppe-rhetoric’s? =)

It’s sad to see that you appear to be completely unable to comprehend the explanations that are given to you, or to contribute with anything other then insults and ad hominem–rhetoric’s, since your comments totally lack any actual content or arguments put forward by you.

Maybe if you could specify what part of my answer it is that you don’t understand, or can accept, as it is written?

Or maybe you could specify what particular item it is that you feel has been stolen, which therefore has disappeared from the owner, so that he then no longer has any access to it, as a result of someone performing an intrusion into the copyright monopoly?

If you can’t come up with any such item that the owner no longer has any access to, well, that’s why it’s not theft.

”So Scary thats a clear admission that you just like Amelia/Fredrika/Anonymous/Falkvvinge etc. use several nicknames? Thanks for the clarification.”

*No, and kindly stop referring to Fredrika’s posts, professorn’s posts, or Amelia’s posts under the suggestion that they are me. They are not. In fact, i suggest we clear this up – as i usually propose – by simply having Christian Engström posting the ip adresses from which the postings were made – all of them.

That will demonstrate quite clearly at least the approximate area of origin which should resolve matters. Now why do I think that it will turn out you are sharing an adress with ”Putte Bommelstein” or any of the other six or so random nicks which we have previously found to belong to one and the same end adress?

I have never – on any forum i visit to debate IT topics – used any other nickname than the one I use right now. Ever. Something which the forum moderator can very quickly verify to his satisfaction. Tell you what – i give explicit permission right here for Christian to publish the ip adresses used in my posts. There should be three ranges in total depending on the location from where i’ve logged on. All of which should be of a type which clearly approximates point of origin. I also give him explicit permission to enlist an impartial observer to verify the given email adresses of all my posts and compare it to any other.

You have the guts to do the same? I should guess offhand that you don’t.